Видео

Now you have the NanoVNA you can measure return loss rather than the clunky and uninformative VSWR. It presents the same information in a much more informative way. First thing to do with it is screw on some connector savers and never take them off. At some point there will be damage and you just put on a new saver. The alternative is a wrecked NanoVNA.

the MFJ 269 B a versatile simple to use gadget! and its more accurate than it need to be, now years later i still use it building tank circuits, measuring coax stubbs, analyzing antennas, fault finding coax, reading input circuit values, building vhf yagi's was never easier, wanna play with hf mobile antennas ? never easier a device... Nano Vna ? ok , but do you really need one :)

I sure hope you removed the magnetron

Thank you for this video!

I have a similar problem with my Dekco DC5P model security camera, except in my case, the black wire has come undone from within the stepper motor. I'm having a hard time finding a similar replacement motor online with the same length wires (approx 20 cm). Do you know if it's possible to expose the insides of the stepper motor to resolder the wire, that would be great. If you're able to provide any help, I would be so grateful.

Corrected errors in Reference Section ..

perfect....thanks...and 15 minutes later it's working again

Love her

Thanks for the video. I needed to access the lens and your video helped. Any chance you know why some gunk on the lens that won’t come off with alcohol. It seems like sun damage but not sure. Any idea how to remove?

Do you have the link to the 3d print files? Thanks!

I've still got the original 269 from when it was first released. MFJ lost an engineer and it was off the market for a long time. Got my nanoVNA-H for the stuff the 269 can't. With all the accessories for grid dip readings, the MFJ analyzer will continue to stay in my shack until one of my HAM sons steals it.

HUZZAH! VA3PAF! Thank You Sir! From ~ Russell KE7QXR!

How stupid of me. I thought a "shoot out" was going to be a side by side comparison of the two devices. You know, like how EVERYONE else uses the term. Took me until I was 75% into the video to learn the title was click bait.

My friend spends three times the amount of time fiddling with his Nano for a particular antenna tasks than I spend with my Rig Expert but maybe he's just really slow at it.

Promo sm 🙋

:O

It’s a router not a rotor. LOL!

Did you follow the registration steps, to get it on your network ? Nothing works until you get it connected to the App.

hi ya any idea why i have a fault on my brand new camera , straight out of the box on powering up only green light ??? no red light or the usual camera movement. i brought 4 of these and set up 3 no problem , any insights would be great. also would appreciate info with the Teck team you communicated with ie Julie from dekco . many trhanks Tom

Why do all MFJ products look like they were made in someone's garage?

非常有趣的视频。在2015年的时候，我买了MFJ 269用于RFID 天线的测试。现在使用nanoVNA进行测试。都是非常好的工具。但是今天能够看到这个视频，真的是出乎意料，以为MFJ269已经消失在大家的眼中了。

How much would it really affect the results if you did the calibration at the sma connectors and did not recalibrate for the foot long piece of coax and additional connectors? I'm considering that in the real world you will have some length of coax, 10, 20, 50, or more feet long, between the antenna analyzer or nano--VNA. So, what difference does that extra foot make? I understand that whatever the SWR is at the antenna, losses in the coax or other feed line will always make it look better. But, in most cases it is not practical to take the measurement at the antenna.

You must live near a Gigaparts - They sell those same isolators.

simple visual example can you see a large freq sweep with the mfj like 3mhz to 30mhz and see all the highs low in real time. win for the nano vna

How important is calibration if all you are interested in is finding the lowest SWR and not the absolute values? For example adjusting the length of my antenna to have the lowest SWR for where I am transmitting at.

Very good explanation sir. Great video.

Comparing these 2 technologies is like comparing a Sony Walkman with a modern smartphone. Pointless Non-starter!

Mighty Fine Junk vs. state-of-the-art Chinesium! This is a showdown I'll actually watch. (especially since I've _wanted_ an MFJ tuner, but what I _have_ is a nanoVNA. ;)

Have you check out the SSA-2N NanoVNA-V2 it has the larger 239 type connectors

I remember that feeder ...

Good first video, thank you. I hit the like and subscribe and look forward to your further "exploits". After watching a half-dozen of videos on the Nano VNA I'm going to pull the trigger on one. I'm an new ham and I just love testing "stuff" since I did that for over 20 years in the construction industry. This is way cleaner and less dangerous. As long as I don't get a hold of a live wire! 😵‍💫

just got the VNA-H it was under a hundred dollars and latest firmware

What you refer as Smoothing in your video is the DBCAM procedure. Smoothing is battery cell balancing and it does not have much influence to overall battery SoH. It is even done every time you charge using your granny charger.

Thank you for sharing your experience; and for demonstrating the Trip Mapper function.

Your car is always charged to 40 Ah. 38 Ah is just a value used by Mitsubishi for early model cars when calculating warranty and probably it was initially used to account for degradation to the battery before the car is delivered to a customer (which could take several month). By saying that the battery has 38 Ah while it actually has 40 Ah you basically introduce an artificial SoH value which is 5% higher than the real SoH value which also increases the bottom buffer limit by 5% and reduces the range you can drive by 5% even though the battery will still be charged to the same level. So by promising 38 Ah instead of 40 Ah they kind of guarantee that all cars will have at least 100% SoH during delivery and at the same time they decreased the warranty limit by 5% which could significant reduce the number of warranty cases when the battery has to be replaced. 5% difference sometimes could take more than a year to lose and this is how Mitsubishi could save a lot of $. If you have an early model which had 38 Ah specified as the actual battery capacity in the BMU, then it is not the top buffer which will be affected by this, but the bottom buffer. The car always charges to the same level which is when all cells reach 4.1 V, but for battery which in BMU is set as 38 Ah you will not be able to discharge it as much as you could if it was set as 40 Ah. So by setting the battery capacity to 38 Ah you basically raise the bottom buffer by 5%. However, since the bottom buffer practically does not play any significant role in battery longevity for this specific case, the argument of having 38 Ah battery vs. 40 Ah battery is practically irrelevant, except that you may get less range out of your car for no reason. There is a ~95% charge limit of the battery, but it is because the charging of the car stops at 4.1V while a typical lithium-ion battery with such battery tech like in Outlander PHEV could charge up to at least 4.2 V and even more. So if you can now charge the battery to 100%, then without this 4.1V limit you could charge it maybe to 105%. In other words the battery is always charged to 100% of its rated capacity and we consider it to be charged to less than 100% just because it is not charged to its full potential which is done to increase battery longevity and prevent its rapid premature degradation. The bottom buffer in Outlander PHEV Is set to 26-30% SoH, however, it can be discharged down to 13% when driving without any fuel in the tank which is still a safe limit for the battery except that it may have more wear at those levels and may reduce longevity of the battery if used frequently at those levels. The BMU underestimates battery SoH which has a negative affect on lower buffer limit determination and has nothing to do with how much battery cells can be charged to. They are always charged to 4.1V and the charger balances each time you charge using AC charger. You lose the extra EV range because the car stops discharging the battery too early, because it determines where the limit is not determined by voltage, but by SoH value, e.g. 100% - SoH value *0.7 = lower buffer, so the lower the SoH value, the higher the lower limit will be which is set to be at a fixed ~30% of SoH value. So if your real SoH is 100%, then your lover limit will be at 30% SoC (100-100*0.7), but if the BMU underestimates the SoH value and reports it to be e.g. 90% while it is actually 100%, then your lower limit will be at 37% SoC (100-90*0.7). Note also that capacity is measured in kWh, not in kW like you show in the video

You should not use the range estimates shown by the car for any serious planning. That shown range is a guessed value which is why it is called a guessometer. The results shown by it take into account a lot of factors such as outside temperature, data from your previous driving sessions, etc. This is not just for fuel. there are some screenshots which show that EV only range can be shown by the car with up to ~100 km range even if the car max should not drive any more than 50 km. The same story is also for the PHEV Watchdog app which uses different algorithms for range estimation and they are based on longer historic driving data compared to shorter term historic data which is used by the car. So in general you could trust the estimates shown by the car if you would drive on the same road, under the same conditions and using the same driving style for multiple days in a row. Then after some days you could already say that what the car shows is more or less accurate estimates. If you drove in a city for a month and then suddenly decided to drive 200 km on a highway, then all the estimates will be seriously off. The fuel amount shown by the PHEV Watchdog is what the car reports, so it is as good as it gets. However, the fuel measurement accuracy in the tank reduces significantly the lower the fuel level is and whenever there is less than ~5 liters of fuel left the readings cannot be trusted and can jump up and down by liters in seconds. The readings can also vary a lot just because of the car orientation. That is probably why the car stops showing any remaining range estimates when the fuel level is below ~5 l and just shows the dashes to indicate that it must be refueled ASAP. I would also like to add that the fuel gauge shown by the car is not accurate and it shows that the fuel tank is full when it is far from full. IIRC it shows that the tank is full when there in reality it is just maybe 75% full (do not remember the actual value). This could give a wrong impression of how much fuel one actually has, because when it shows that you have 50%, then it only has maybe only ~35% left. The PHEV Watchdog app, however, should show it correctly.

I got the MFJ way back in the 90's. it was a wonderful tool to add to your ham gear 'toolbox' at that time. It is STILL a very useful, simple to use item. I also have a nanoVNA, it's awesome and more portable than the MFJ, with more graphical and more useful features. I take mine with me for portable ops. Both have their place in amateur radio.

I stored my mfj269C in the closet. It's been there for sometime. Thought it was a safe place to store it. I got it out yesterday the power switch was stuck in the on position and by turning it on and off finally was free to turn on and off. The unit needs to be sent back for repairs its non functioning? I'm still waiting on FMJ so I can send it out. Any chance there's another place to send to for repairs? If I new the nano would be a better choice and could trust it I would just switch to the VNA

My nanovna shows that my swr is 1.93 while the swr meter shows 1.01 for match so which is right? The swr meter just shows the swr only?

Great video and very well detailed... Happy to know the Watchdog is being useful.

My MFJ 259 has lasted for over 20 years and counting. My NanoVNA lasted six months. And the MFJ doesn't need calibration every five minutes.

UPDATE: Having made Recovery Drives, for several home Windows Computers, here is my Procedure. 1) Read this guide completely before starting. 2) Ensuring no other Programs are running; use the SEARCH function, and type in the word 'Control'. 3) Select 'Control Panel', when it appears in the Programs list. 4) After it opens, ensure the 'View By' selection (Top Right) is set to 'LARGE ICONS'. 5) Then Find the RECOVERY ICON. in the large Programs window, and CLICK it. 6) When the 'Control Panel Home' window opens; SELECT 'Create a Recovery Drive' from the selections. 7) On the Next Screen, POPULATE the CHECKBOX in the 'Back up system files to the recovery drive' option. 8) Approve any warning screens presented by your Security System. 9) After you Click NEXT, your Windows Computer will take a few minutes to SCAN your PC. 10) The SCAN will present a Recommendation for the Minimum Thumb Drive Size. If a proper size is inserted, it will allow you to select it. 11) If you do not have a Thumb Drive of the Proper Minimum Size, CANCEL the process. Recovery Drive Size Requirements vary, amongst Windows Machines. Some might need a 16G Drive, while others much more. My Laptop needed a 32G Thumb Drive. 12) When you acquire a suitable size to insert, insert it; and work your way back to Step 10, then hit NEXT. 13) The Next Step will likely Format your Thumb Drive; but in every case it will remove everything, as it proceeds. 14) If you are ready, with the Proper Size Thumb Drive Inserted, Click CREATE. 15) Come back in a few hours, and remove the Thumb Drive, when the Process has Completed. 16) Windows may offer an option to remove your system's copy of the Recovery Drive. Consider this carefully, since most machines have lots of extra space. I left mine there, as an extra precaution. 17) Label And Store your newly Created Recovery Drive in a Safe Place. 18) I used Velcro to attach my Drive to the side of my computer, to remind me of its existence.

Interesting development .... Windows 12 is rumored to be very close, so I might get to do all of this again in a year.

RigExpert is the way to go!

I own both of these testers. I think the learning curve is steeper on the Nano VNA. I am more likely to use my MFJ more frequently since is just plain stupid simple to check for SWR. No Need to re-calibrate between changing bands. The drawback to the MFJ is the steep price. The Pro of using the Nano VNA is there is so many more functions. You can even use it to tune Duplexors for repeaters.

Like many others I have both, the NanoVNA and the MFJ. I seem to have settled to a use pattern where the NanoVNA is driven by the PC for bench measurements. It is great as a way to keep records of plots derived from experiments. The MFJ is far more convenient to use outdoors (and easier to read) for antenna measurements. I am fortunate to have both, the MFJ was given to me by a friend, and has proven to be very useful. For most hams I suspect the NanoVNA is too complex to use and that the "antenna analysers" suit them better. Both need care particularly with HF antennas that can gather high levels of static charge in some situations. The capabilities of the NanoVNA make it rate very high in my list of ham radio bargains.

I have both and really when I just need a quick check of one of my antennas I still grab the 269 its simple, no frills and used it enough to know what to trust and what's kind of lying 👍 Now if I was going to do a deeper analysis of an antenna I'd probably grab the Nano VNA.

The Nano VNA is a great little instrument, but you get what you pay for. I found that the Nano VNA was much more subject to interference from other signals than the MFJ-269. An example, I was testing a six meter loop in my yard with the loop up about 15 feet. The nano VNA could not successfully test the loop having varying and incorrect results. The MFJ was able to test and allow me to adjust the loop problem free. There is a lot of value in the Nano VNA. I would recommend it for filter testing, etc. on your bench. For antennas my results were sometimes OK but other times not.